Ok, so I think it is finally time to maybe move all the bashing into one thread and try and keep the topics about the topics and not the man behind the mask. Lets just have an official "Obama Bashing Thread" so we can maybe keep things a little more about the topics and not about Obama.

This thread will probably get mean, but just keep that in mind before you start getting upset.

Just to be clear, this thread is not meant to take away from issue-specific topics like health care, immigration, financial reform, the oil spill etc. It is intended to bash the Socialist In Chief on a variety of minor issues specifically and his utter incompetence generally. It can include articles about White House corruption (which I'm definitely going to be involved with), socialist policy decisions and laws, his tendency to pursue recreational activities instead of doing his damn job, the radical extremist people he surrounds himself with, and anything else that makes him look like the worthless POS that he is. This ought to be fun.

I'll kick this thing off with the first article of many to come:

American Thinker wrote:

July 02, 2010 The decreasing relevancy of Obama's presidencyTony Gallardo

Barack Obama burst on the scene 18 months ago as the greatest political figure the world had ever seen. There was an almost worshipful adulation of him as people around the globe fainted, wept, and danced in the streets while watching his inauguration. There was foot stomping, shouts of hallelujah and a few "praise the lords" thrown in for good measure.

A lefty acquaintance of mine, knowing I am conservative, just had to inform me, excitedly, that "Finally! We have a president who knows what the hell he is doing!" To which I can now reply, "Well...not really."

Sometimes the smallest things can tell us volumes. He had campaigned on the closure of Guantanamo Bay for months before taking office, and his first act as president was to sign an executive order promising to close it by the end of 2009. The lefties were delirious with joy. By gum, this president was going to get rid of the ultimate symbol of the hated policies of the Nazi trio of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld!

At the signing, Obama turned to then White House Counsel Greg Craig, and asked something to the effect of "...exactly how is this going to work, Greg?" Caught off guard by the question, Craig shuffled his feet uncomfortably and mumbled something unintelligible. He didn't know, either.

They are six months late and they still don't know. This one incident tells us how Obama "thinks", or rather doesn't think. He believes that when he speaks, his words create reality; but the world doesn't allow itself to be shaped by the thoughts and musings of some shallow politician.

Almost no one now listens to him, and of those who do, fewer still believe him or take him seriously.

The Euros rejected his calls for more stimulus to their economies, recognizing what he apparently does not, that they and we are in danger of all collapsing under the weight of excessive spending. They told him to stuff it.

He hasn't ended either of the wars; he can't even keep a command structure in place for more than a few months at a time.

Terrorists are still attacking and killing us both on U.S. soil and abroad, despite all of his apologies. Where's the love?

The Russians are still spying on us, even though Hillary tried to press the "reset" button on relations.

The deficit is out of control.

The economy is not in recovery; his policies are not creating jobs or reducing unemployment.

The oil spill is still a disaster, but Obama did have one momentary thought; something about "sucking it up with a straw", but then he hastily stated that he really couldn't do that. Such is the kind of ideas we get from an Ivy League deep thinker.

So, is there anything he can do well? Well, yeah...he can point fingers, shift blame, and lecture us about all the things he dislikes about us.

One more thing: before any liberals out there get their panties all in a bunch, you are more than welcome to start an "Obama Love Thread", especially if he gives you tingles up your leg like he does to Chris Matthews of MSNBC. This was still a free country the last time I checked. I don't know for how much longer that will be true though.

The Obama administration grows more arrogant, cavalier and fundamentally dishonest every day. Just in the past few days, we've seen a number of troubling examples. Frankly, sometimes it's hard to keep up.

In a speech in Wisconsin, Obama was bragging about how wonderful the terrible economy is. You'll recall that during both of President George W. Bush's terms, Democrats, including Obama, castigated him for destroying the economy, despite the existence of empirically verifiable robust growth during some seven of those eight years.

Now that Obama has been in office for a year and a half and his economy is failing by all objective measures, he and his Democrats demand, once again, that we ignore the empirical evidence in front of our faces and bow down to them in reverent gratitude for ensuring that things are not worse than they are.

Everyone knows Obama promised — he was hardly tentative about his prediction — that if the nation followed him over the cliff with his harebrained "stimulus" scheme, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. When unemployment soared above 10 percent, he insisted we be patient to allow his plan to work. Now that it stubbornly remains in the high 9s, he tells us that if he hadn't implemented his stimulus bill, the economy would be much worse (12 or 13 or 15 percent), so we not only are forbidden from criticizing him for this disaster but also must genuflect because only three of the four wheels of the economy are teetering over the edge of the cliff.

He said, "There may be some roads that not only were repaired but also were ... linked up to create a new industrial park that would facilitate long-term economic development beyond this immediate crisis."

Can you imagine the reaction of the liberal media had a Republican president uttered such gibberish? There "may be some roads"? How's that for a non-statement? That were linked up to a new industrial park to facilitate long-term growth? How about some facts here, Mr. Intellectual? Then again, how can you blame him for citing nebulous "facts" and failed economic theory when neither the real facts nor the economic evidence substantiates his claims.

He also said that every economist who's looked at it has said that the recovery did its job. Would someone please get this man a link to The Heritage Foundation's website or any other credible conservative think tank or economist? Time and time again, Heritage scholars have not only argued but also demonstrated why Obama's economic policies don't work in theory and haven't worked in practice. As noted many times before, they have not helped avert a crisis, but have exacerbated already bleak conditions. Sure, all economists agree with him, just as all Americans agree with his socialistic policies.

Moving on, in the past few days, we've also heard from former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who has confirmed — from the belly of the beast — our worst suspicions about Obama and Eric Holder's Justice Department's dismissing a slam-dunk case for voter intimidation against New Black Panther Party members for racial reasons. This is an egregious trampling on the rule of law, an outrage that would subject any Republican president to charges of high crimes and misdemeanors, a scandal of the first order for which this administration isn't even bothering to develop "plausible deniability."

Next, we read about Obama's reaction to Sen. Lamar Alexander's reasonable suggestion that any energy discussion between the president and a "bipartisan" group of senators should include a focus on the oil spill and BP. Obama said, "That's just your talking point," and flat-out refused to discuss the subject. Is he king or what?

Finally, we've also witnessed this week another outburst from that paragon of smugness, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, whom I criticized earlier for mocking members of the press corps for their legitimate questions in lieu of attempting to answer them in good faith.

This time, this little smarmy nerd-thug mocked Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona for claiming Obama told him in a private meeting he would not secure our borders because it would disincentivize Republicans from supporting his effort to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" (read: amnesty). Gibbs accused Kyl of changing his story and basically arguing with himself on the matter, even though Kyl has not retreated an iota from the only relevant assertion: that Obama made the statement in question. Watch the video in which Gibbs clearly intends to create the false impression Kyl had vacillated on his charge (http://freedomslighthouse.net/2010/06/3 ... bama-video), and tell me with a straight face we're not dealing with an entirely unprecedented level of arrogance in this White House.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh070210.php3?printer_friendlyI sincerely hope some moderate Democrats and Independents read this thread on a regular basis because I'm going to expose the lies, fraud, corruption, and the socialist agenda of the worst President in my lifetime on a continuous basis. Open your eyes and see the truth of what this incompetent boob is all about.

In response to various comments regarding my last blog post: Obama on Jobs: Worst Track Record in History.

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

Actually the full quote as attributed to Economist, Thomas Sowell was: "Hope is not reality, and reality is not optional."

Of all the jobs created, and recovered before progressives co-opted the Democrat party, how many were created by the lie that it is up to the Government to borrow money and use it to provide economic stimulus? The answer is none. The old liberal policy used to be called tax and spend (i.e. get the money first and then spend it). The tried and true conservative policy is to cut taxes and let the people spend their own money (i.e. let the free market dictate). The progressive slant has regressed into a new policy called, borrow and spend (i.e. borrow money by the trillion, spend it first, and then tax the hell out of anyone who survives).

We know that the first two methods worked to some degree, although we often disagreed on which was better. All we have to do is go back in history to measure their results. The goal has always been to grow our economy in line with the population, with limited inflation and full employment. But under this new borrow and spend philosophy, all we have is the hope that, if you are ever able to get your head above water, you will be taxed back into oblivion to pay for all the money spent to get you there. In the meantime you just hope that the $250 or $400 per year government handout is enough to get you by.

The hope that an unproven policy will be able to produce the same result as proven methods is not only uncertain, but in this matter impossible. Uncertainty is optional, but reality is not.

Joe Biden recently stated, "We will never be able to recover the eight million jobs that were lost." Why would he say that? Because there is no way that it can be done under progressive ideology. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Under progressive ideology, the economy is something that will continue to function efficiently no matter which policies are crammed down its throat: stimulus, health care, energy policy, financial reform, etc... All of which may be noble goals in a fictitious world, but neither has anything to do with economic growth, nor job creation. True, each may create a few (net) jobs in the next 20 to 40 years, but there may not be any need by that time. In the end, you may be able to force all of these wonderful policies upon the peons, but by then no one will care because the great economy that once existed will be no more.

We need an economy that works for us today, not 20 years from now.

In reality, mandatory health insurance won’t do much good if there are no doctors or hospitals to visit. And where will one go to purchase it when all the insurance companies are gone? Renewable energy and carbon taxes won’t do much for the masses then living in cardboard boxes. Financial reform will be for naught if no one has any money left to save or invest. You can’t have it both ways. Either you put jobs and the economy first, or you fail on all counts.

Hoping that an unproven set of policies will work is not reality. We gave it a shot by spending well over $1 trillion, and it didn’t work. The national debt is now almost 100% of GDP and there is nothing to show for it. So what do you want to do? Do you want to keep on borrowing and stimulating until there’s nothing left? Or should we perhaps pause and consider making a u-turn? I say we heed the warning and make a u-turn before it's too late.

We know what works, all we have to do is look back in our history at the policies that made America great.

Is Obama a Socialist? I've already made up my mind, but you need to decide for youself:

Bluegrass Pundit wrote:

Friday, July 2, 2010Socialist Party Upset Obama is Being Called a Socialist

The national director of the Democratic Socialists of America is frustrated people are calling President Obama a Socialist.

"I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working."

Hmm... The DSA backed Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Here is an excerpt from their newsletter, the “Democratic Left” (pdf).

While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda. We know that a proactive and progressive government can come only on the heels of a broad coalition for social justice united against a reactionary Republicanism as well as a Democratic neo-liberalism. Such a movement will also have to fight for a public finance system that can limit the power of corporate fundraising and lobbyists over both major political parties.

Frank Llewellyn accused President Obama of "programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working." Let's see what programs they proposed in their 2008 newsletter.

Thus, DSA offers its Economic Justice Agenda and its “four pillars” as a framework for such a progressive policy agenda. This program calls for:

1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

This looks an awful lot like what President Obama has been focusing on since taking office. In the cases where President Obama hasn't fully implemented the DSA agenda, it hasn't been because Obama isn't a true believer. Moderate Democrats have stood in the way of full implementation. You can more learn about Barack Obama's socialist roots here.

Although the GOP has accused President Obama of driving the US towards socialism, President Obama has denied that he is a socialist. He has a hard time admitting it is even a "serious" question. Many on the left ridicule those who call Obama a socialist and say they don't know the definition of socialism. Here is the traditional definition from Dictionary.com:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

What does the largest socialist organization (DSA) in America have to say:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

More from the Democratic Socialists of America website (pdf):

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.

Socialism in America today means means government ownership or control of the means of production in order to make money for social needs.

In order to understand Barack Obama's view of socialism, we need to understand his history. Was he raised as a socialist?

Barack Obama's first book was titled "Dreams of My Father." Since Obama's father abandoned him at an early age, he should not have been a major influence to Barack Obama. For completeness, it should be noted that Barack Obama Sr. had socialist/communist leanings. In 1965 Obama Sr. wrote an important paper titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism." In this paper, Obama Sr. put himself on the side of communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga against pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya in Kenya.

Brarck Obama was raised by his mother and his maternal grandparents. What were their political views?

Barack Obama's mothers political views are not well documented. It is known she was a Adlai Stevenson liberal and cultural anthropologist. She went to a high school ran by an admitted communist. While there, she was required to read "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and defended this philosophy in debates.

What about Obama's maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham? They have been reported in the mainstream media as strict Methodists. However, during Ann's high school years they went to East Shore Unitarian Church in nearby Bellevue, nicknamed 'the little Red church on the hill,' for their left leaning sympathies and support of Communist China. As reported in the preceding paragraph, the Dunham's sent their daughter to a High School ran by an admitted communist. It is also well known that Stanley Dunham was good friends with radical activist, journalist and suspected communist Frank Marshall Davis. In his book "Dreams of My Father" Barack Obama tells how Davis mentored him when he was dealing with racial issues.

The above biographical information indicates Barack Obama had a very left of center upbringing.

After college, Barack Obama moved to Chicago where his association with left leaning groups like ACORN are well known. Obama's association with Bill Ayers has also been documented. Ayres was a former member of the terrorist Weatherman group, a Communist-driven splinter faction of Students for a Democratic Society. When Obama ran for State Senate in Illinois in 1995, he was endorsed by the Democratic Socialist of America splinter group "New Party." Obama's "Fight the Smears" website denies he was ever a member of or sought endorsement of the socialist "New Party." It is true that Obama has always ran as a Democrat. However, photos and literature from 1995 identify Obama as a "New Party" member. Since he ran unopposed in 1995, it is difficult to explain why he attended "New Party" events if he wasn't a member. He didn't need the votes.

What has President Obama done since being elected that could be considered socialist? He appointed a known Communist as his green jobs czar. Also, Obama has greatly expanded the takeover of major banks that was begun during the final months of the Bush administration. Under Obama, the government has taken over General Motors, America's largest auto manufacturer. The government forced Chrysler to be turned over to the workers in the UAW.

Now, President Obama is pushing health care reform that includes a government run health care option. The justification he uses for this is insurance companies are evil because they make too much profit. In this week's weekly address, President Obama reams insurance companies for making a profit. Most of the video is a rant against insurance companies, but the criticism of profits comes at the 4:00 mark.

President Obama thinks company profits should be secondary to the public interest. Let's remember how the Democratic Socialists of America describe socialism:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

President Obama was born of and raised by leftist, socialists and/or communists. His actions as President indicate the apple has not fallen far from the tree.

This writer makes a lot of sense. Instead of getting angry at Obama, just sit back and laugh at him for being the clown that he is:

Big Government wrote:

Barack Obama Is Making Me Laugh by Pamela Geller I sat chuckling all through Obama’s immigration speech Thursday. Forgive me, but that has been my recent response whenever I listen to Obama’s speechifying. I am somewhat surprised at my recent response to his outlandish rhetoric, but he makes such a mockery of his very words, of America, and of capitalism, that he is, invariably, comical.

He recited Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus,” which is engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty, yet he has disparaged American exceptionalism and prides himself on being post-American. How can you not bust a gut?

So I listened to his speech on immigration and chuckled as he lectured us, yet again, on what America is — as if he had a clue about what America is. His contempt for us is so palpable. As if he had any respect for what makes America great – free speech, individual rights, entrepreneurship, and privacy rights. As if he had a clue as to why legal immigrants come here — to escape tyrants and would-be tyrants like him.

I understand why he must ram immigration through now. And why he is taking this issue on now after destroying the American healthcare system. He has no shot of re-election without a base of amnestied illegal immigrants voting for Democrats. It is his only motive — but I digress.

What about the Gulf? This is a catastrophe of unfathomable proportions, the decades-long repercussions of which have not yet begun to be understood or calculated. What about those people, those communities? Whole swaths of coastline, entire towns, even entire counties may face evacuation.

Why isn’t the President of the United States working on the problem 24/7? I want to know why the nation’s Chief Executive has not been holed up in a war room, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the past 72 days, working with the world’s finest scientific minds and oceanographic and energy experts to solve the oil spill crisis.

Where is the BP war room? And why isn’t the POTUS in it? Why isn’t Obama attached at the hip to BP executives and to every oil specialist in such matters, working on the “leak” until it is fixed? Why weren’t the best brains in NASA brought in — as opposed to Obama’s redirecting their efforts to “help Muslim countries”?

Why isn’t the President of the United States accepting the myriad offers of help from allied nations?

Why are the images being hidden from view? Why are folks prohibited from certain areas? Why isn’t there wall-to-wall on-scene coverage, as there was of the Valdez oil spill — which looks lilliputian next to this Obama disaster?

In 2005, a devastating act of G-d, hurricane Katrina busted the levies and blew out New Orleans. It was an historic tragedy, and we will never forget it. How could we? The media beat us to death with story after story about George W. Bush’s incompetence (as if he were G-d).

Do you remember how the media fought under the Freedom of Information Act to print pictures of bodies floating in the water? They wanted to make every death a case of murder — perp? Bush. They were relentless.

But looking back after the Gulf oil spill, it is clear that Bush did a damn fine job, considering the Democratic opposition he had to work with in Louisiana. The Democratic state of Louisiana failed abysmally. The “chocolate city” mayor Ray Nagin refused to evacuate. The fact is that the loss of life and the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina was glaring proof of the failure of the welfare state, a.k.a. the Democrats’ statism model. It was a Democrat mayor, a Democrat governor, and a Democrat political machine in Louisiana that were responsible for the lack of action, response and coordination of pre- and post-Katrina efforts (and to ABC’s surprise, Katrina victims praised Bush and blamed Nagin).

The surrounding Republican states suffered horribly from Katrina and Rita, but you never heard about them.

Fast forward to this nation’s worst disaster and even more disastrously handled catastrophe — Oilbama. Obama has taken the position of a spectator as the Gulf disappears. Amnesty for illegal aliens — that’s what’s important.

Who would you rather be in charge during the BP spill? Bush or Bama? We should not be subjected any more of Obama’s speechifying and verbal diarrhea until he finds and implements a solution to the Gulf crisis.

I have come a long way from when I would listen with trepidation and fear for our nation, so under his spell was America. He has long since been exposed as a clown. And folks, if they listen, can’t help but see that. Watch him, and sit back and laugh.

I'm just getting started here folks. I plan to post more in this thread than I do the Girly Thread.

If I can just get one of you to open your eyes and see this idiot for the lying, hypocritical, incompetent Socialist that he is, then it will all be worth it.

_________________

July 2nd, 2010, 11:13 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10066Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Obama Bashing Thread

It's tough to sit back and laugh when the things he's doing and the people he's putting in charge are creating unprecedented havoc in our society.

The only good thing he's done, in my opinion, is that he's forced the nation to closely look at issues that were barely on radar before, such as the rights of states to go their own way. I don't know that any president in recent memory has had states choosing to ignore the office like he has.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

M2K, I completely understand what you're talking about, but sometimes it's better to laugh at something you can't control than to give yourself a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm. Just saying......

Continuing with more articles:

Wall Street Journal wrote:

The Obama Tax Trap How some Republicans are preparing to walk right into it.

"'Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits step up. Because I'm calling their bluff."

That was President Barack Obama, the heretofore unknown deficit hawk, all but announcing the other day the tax trap that he's been laying for Republicans. From what we hear about intra-GOP debates, more than a few will be happy to walk right into it.

You don't need a Mensa IQ to figure this one out. Mr. Obama's plan has been to increase spending to new, and what he hopes will be permanent, heights. Then as the public and financial markets begin to fret about deficits and debt, he'll claim that the debt is "unsustainable" and that the only "responsible" policy is to raise taxes.

White House officials even talk privately about the galvanizing political benefit of a bond market crisis, which would force panicked Members of Congress to accept a big new value-added tax. The President's two looming tax reports—one from his deficit commission and the other from Paul Volcker's economic advisory group—are intended to propose a VAT and other tax options. Whatever their initial reception, the proposals will be there to be pulled from the shelf when the political moment is right.

Voila, Mr. Obama will have established a new spend-and-tax policy architecture that has the feds taking from 25% to 30% of GDP, up from the roughly 21% modern average.

***This strategy explains why Mr. Obama is now starting to fret in public about deficits and debt. This week he even said reducing the debt will be "our project." Funny how debt seemed a lower priority when he was urging Congress to pass $862 billion in stimulus and $1 trillion in new health-care subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office is contributing to this political drama by declaring this week that the "federal budget is on an unsustainable path." Of course, but why? The biggest reason is that Medicare and Medicaid keep rising at two to three times the rate of everything else in the economy and, as CBO explains, will eventually take up every dollar of tax revenues raised, leaving no money for anything else, including national defense.

"Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid," advises CBO, "is the central long term challenge for federal fiscal policy." This is the same CBO that blessed ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion to 16 million more recipients.

What CBO's latest apocalyptic report doesn't stress is what we'd call the more important deficit in its forecast: the growth deficit. CBO predicts an annual rate of GDP growth of 2.2%. Yet since 1959 the U.S. economy has grown at an average rate of 3%, and during the 1980s and 1990s it was closer to 3.5%. The compounding effect of restoring this faster pace of growth would mean far more net national wealth and would certainly make debt repayment easier.

Even Mr. Obama's current spending level of 25% of GDP would be more manageable if the slow economic recovery weren't keeping tax revenue at unusual lows. In 2007, the economy threw off revenue of 18.5% of GDP. That fell to 14.8% in 2009 and may not be too much higher this year. The point is that there is no hope of balancing the federal budget without a return to higher levels of economic growth.

This is where Republicans need to maneuver around Mr. Obama's tax trap. He and his White House economists believe that taxes have little effect on growth so they can get revenues to 20% or 25% of GDP simply by raising tax rates or imposing a VAT. But if they're wrong about the impact of those taxes on a still-fragile economy recovery, they could keep the economy on a subpar growth path for years to come. We think the last thing the U.S. economy needs at the moment—and the worst policy for the deficit—is the big tax increase that will hit on January 1 with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Yet we hear that even many Republicans are privately insisting that any extension of those Bush tax cuts must be "paid for" with other tax increases. Under Congress's perverse budget rules, extending those tax cuts will "cost" the Treasury revenue, even though extending those tax rates would only prevent a tax increase.

And because Congress still uses static revenue scoring—meaning no change in economic behavior from tax changes—the Joint Tax Committee thinks it will raise nearly $1 trillion over 10 years from the higher tax rates on incomes, dividends and capital gains. That's highly improbable. After those tax rates were cut in 2003, total federal tax revenue increased by 44%, or $743 billion, from 2003-2007.

In other words, Democrats have rigged the rules so that merely stopping a tax increase will be scored to increase the deficit. These are the same Democrats who haven't "paid for" trillions of spending in the last four years, but watch them soon denounce Republicans as fiscally irresponsible merely for trying to stop a tax increase. Orwell would love modern Washington.

If Republicans go along with this perverse pay-as-you-go logic, they will play into Mr. Obama's hands. He'll gladly offer to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to "pay for" extending the lower Bush rates on the middle class. Never mind that the tax increases on capital gains, dividends and income tax rates will do the most economic harm.

***Republicans need to break out of their rhetorical preoccupation with debt and deficits, focusing their political aim instead on spending and above all on reviving economic growth. They should hold the line against all tax increases and begin to consider a menu of tax cuts to make the U.S. more competitive, especially if the economy continues to underperform.

Mr. Obama's strategy of spending our way to prosperity clearly hasn't worked, as the voters are coming to understand. But if the GOP policy response is merely to bemoan deficits, they will soon find themselves back at their historic stand as tax collectors for the welfare state. To avoid Mr. Obama's tax trap, Republicans also need a growth agenda.

As soon as I heard him say "I'm calling their bluff", my first thought was that he was planning to raise taxes. You either have to be blind or incredibly stupid not to see it coming. But, of course, none of this will be announced until after the November elections. If he's so serious about reducing the deficit, how about starting right now instead of waiting until next year, huh? That's right, his plan is to raise taxes instead of cutting spending, and that would only hurt his comrades in the November elections. I can see right through your bullshit, you socialist piece of human excrement!

One more thing: before any liberals out there get their panties all in a bunch, you are more than welcome to start an "Obama Love Thread", especially if he gives you tingles up your leg like he does to Chris Matthews of MSNBC. This was still a free country the last time I checked. I don't know for how much longer that will be true though.

We first reported on the fact that Barack Obama and his boss George Soros teamed up to make billions of dollars in the oil business, the day the $10 billion dollar gift to Brazil was announced almost a year ago. Sadly, outside of the blogs, no one has reported on this major scandal at all, except Glenn Beck, who has recently taken notice.

I mean how hard is this one to put together? You’ve got Nazi sympathizer George Soros, the self proclaimed “owner of the democrat party” purchasing controlling interest in Brazilian oil giant Petrobas, then just a couple of days later, Barack Obama “loans” the country of Brazil $10 billion, which is then given to …. wait for it …. Petrobas. Glenn keeps saying it’s $2 billion, but the commitment is for $10 billion.

You can read our most previous offerings on this incredible corruption here and here.

It’s simply incredible that no one is screaming for Obama and Soros’ arrest here. This is obvious corruption on an industrial scale. This is Obama “never letting a crisis go to waste.”

Now I’m not going to suggest that Obama or Soros, or anyone else had anything to do with the BP oil spill in the Gulf. It was a tragic accident, brought on by massive incompetence from all involved, including the government inspectors. With that said, this plays right into the Obama regime’s hands.

Obama, in an effort to help his boss Soros make billions, was already looking at ways to shut down oil production nationwide. This oil spill just made it easy as pie.

Glenn Beck has done a great job of exposing all of the criminals, radicals, and nerdowells, that make up the Obama regime, and the hangers on who look to make huge profits with Obama’s Crime Inc. On Monday, Glenn did a magnificent job of laying out the case against Obama and Soros:

Again, one must ask, why isn’t someone looking to perp walk Obama across the White House lawn on this deal? It’s incredibly obvious what this set up is. Soros is incredibly powerful, and funds hundreds of groups that spend their days trying to undermine the American way, but even so, this is pretty simple to figure out, and you’d think someone would have the guts to go after this bunch, and seek criminal indictments.

Of course, Obama is a multi-tasker, so not only is he using the BP oil spill to help Soros make billions, he’s also using it to try and pass massive “climate change” legislation, that will include a draconian cap and tax scheme, which will, as Obama has often said, make our energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

Part of the cap and tax scenario includes a “carbon credit” trading scheme. In essence, folks will be arbitrarily given so many “carbon credits” but if they exceed the imaginary (and arbitrary) limits of allowed “pollution” they will have to either shut their activities down, or purchase “carbon credits” from those who haven’t reached their limits.

This is where Obama and Crime Inc. really look to clean up. (pardon the pun) The Chicago Climate Exchange, where all of these “carbon credits” will be traded, was funded by Obama, during his time on the board of a far left Joyce Foundation. The Chicago Climate Exchange will make money off of each transaction.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you emit carbon dioxide. Plants can’t live without it. In fact, through photosynthesis, plants take CO2 and use it to create oxygen.

This is simply a manufactured crisis that Obama and the likes of Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and others are using in an attempt to become wealthy beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. All of them are owners, along with Goldman Sachs, of the Chicago Climate Exchange. You can read a lot more here and here.

Oh, and it gets better. As Stacy Drake points out here, BP is very much involved with Obama and the entire “climate change” agenda. BP wants to get it’s share of those TRILLIONS of dollars too!

As we point out here, the idea of America getting off of oil within our lifetimes (or our kids, or their kid’s) is highly unlikely, considering that we’ve spent the better part of a century, and untold billions, trying, with few positive results.

In fact, everything you have been told by the left about our energy reserves is a lie. Chad Stafko over at the American Thinker points out that America has over three centuries (300 years) of recoverable oil reserves.

According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries. That’s three hundred years, Mr. President. We are not running out of oil reserves — it’s just that those oil reserves have been declared off-limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left. This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation’s needed oil.

Note the following statement from the article:

… untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

You can read more here.

What Obama, Soros, Gore, and the rest of Crime Inc. are up to is not only criminal, it’s immoral. Oil is the lifeblood of any economy. Remember, petroleum is used in more than just motor fuels and lubricants. Petroleum is used to manufacture plastics, medicines, literally thousands of products.

It’s also an issue of national security. We send somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion out of the country annually to buy crude oil. A good amount of that money goes to countries that hate us, and use this money to actively work against us. It’s insane.

Sarah Palin wrote about this recently, which we talk about here.

To sum this up, Barack Obama, George Soros, and others look to get incredibly rich off of these two schemes, and as a bonus, they get to completely and totally destroy the United States economy, in hopes of rebuilding America as a communist utopia.

These people are evil, pure and simple. Sadly, nothing will happen until the American people demand it, and demand it vigorously. If you are one of those who just sit on the couch and complain, it’s time to get up and get involved. We must stop all of this, and send these people, all of these people, to prison, where they belong.

linkFor anyone interested in the other articles that are referenced, I suggest you go to the original article and click on the links.

George Soros is an evil man who has called himself, "the owner of the Democratic Party". He spends millions of dollars to fund Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, America Coming Together, Democracy Alliance, and dozens of other progressive/liberal/socialist non-profit groups. These organizations then use his money to finance and support Democratic candidates and socialist policies.

Last year, Soros invested between $811M and $900M in Petrobras. Shortly thereafter, the Obama Administration then sent Brazil $2B, which could grow to $10B, for deep water oil exploration by Petrobras. With the added capital thanks to Obama, Soros is sure to get rich from his investment, which he will then send to the above progressive organizations, which will then send it to Democratic candidates including Obama. Conflict of interest?

It gets better. The Center for American Progress (funded by Soros) suggested that the US should put a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Days later, the Administration did just that for a minimum of six months. There are currently 33 drilling rigs in the Gulf and they are not going to just sit there for 6 months or longer. They are going to move on to Africa, Asia, and you guessed it - BRAZIL! This decision will make even more money for George Soros, who will then use it to help fund Democrats in future elections! This is a huge conflict of interest that needs to be brought to America's attention so they can see through Obama's bullshit.

I'm just getting started with this guys. In days to come, we'll discuss the DOJ dropping the case of voter intimidation by the Black Panthers, the offer of jobs in Washington to Sestak and Romanoff if they dropped out of the Senate race, the total scam which is known as cap and trade (or as Glenn Beck calls Crime INC.), the number of people within the Administration that are socialists, communists, marxists, and radical extremists, as well as a host of other things which will expose Obama as the fraud that he is.

If you want to fight Obama and his agenda, read the article I'm about to post. You don't have to do everything. Just pick one or two things that you're capable of doing and do them. We MUST stop this Commie bastard at all costs:

American Thinker wrote:

Remember those who paid for our liberty in blood |

July 04, 2010 What to Do?Carol Brown

There's no need to rehash with hundreds of words what has already been established - that we have a President in office who is advancing a dangerous agenda.

The good news is that the majority of Americans have been able to see the truth. That they've been able to do so while the msm obscures, mangles, and distorts the truth is even more heartening.

The bad news is that too many Americans are still clueless about the suicidal path we are on.

What to do? How can we turn things around before it is too late?

Many ideas have been offered on these pages in articles and blogs and among countless comments. I offer a review of many of these ideas and invite AT readers to share others about how to effect change.

***

Get involved with the Tea Party movement.

Get involved with local politics. Go to meetings of the school board and the city council. Consider running for office yourself.

Support good candidates running for office including key out-of-state races. If you don't have money to give, volunteer. If you don't live locally, make calls for them. (Many, if not most, have 800 call-in numbers to use so you don't have to pay a penny yourself.)

Contact elected officials across the country about issues of importance. (Don't forget about the rare ones who are doing a great job. They need to hear from us, too!)

Start an online and/or paper file if you haven't done so already that includes links to elected officials, media outlets, etc.

Write letters to the editor, comments on blogs, comments on youtube, etc, especially when the left dominate the discussion.

Call into radio programs and voice your opinion. (Choose your words wisely when speaking to the person screening calls to improve your chances of getting on the air if it's a liberal station.)

Support organizations doing important work pertaining to issues you feel passionate about.

Talk to people in your community, including clergy at your place of worship. Get like-minded folks more involved and see if you can get your foot in the door with those who disagree with you but where there may be one topic or point of somewhat common ground to build on. (I usually use the idea of self-preservation for that one!)

Consider putting a thin binder together of seminal articles to share with others. Keep a few choice articles and/or links with you (in your car, purse, etc) should you unexpectedly find yourself talking with someone who is curious about what you have to say. (I tend to use a relatively large font and avoid too much text on the page.)

Organize a small group of like-minded folks in your community and work on projects together. (Having a group like this organized can also be useful when you need to respond to something that is time-sensitive.)

Suggest a book at your book club. And make sure your local library has ordered certain books. If they haven't, ask them to order them.

Be a poll worker or a poll watcher.

Make a commitment to yourself about how much time and energy you will spend each week on